[Killborn]

If Islam is really this monolithic all oppressing ideology then there’d still be full-scale fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan not peacekeeping operations WITH the help of indigineous forces. As such, it’s doing a pretty lousy job when a large number of its followers are a lot less fanatical than the average Nazi or Imperial Japanese. We’d accomplish more in 4 years in the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan than in both Germany and Japan after WWII. In fact, if as many people are this cooperative in WWII, it would have ended a hell of a lot sooner.

To lump/alienate all potential allies as enemies is a stupid move. Even the American colonists worked with the “savages”.

[Realism]

Pretty simplistic point of view. The colonists used the Indians to gain power, France helped also. So if France decided that they would assume control and setup a government for colonists and the American Indians, the colonists would have turned on France without hesitation.

The shia and Kurds "used" the coalition to take power in Iraq, when it didn't happen the shia quickly turned on our troops with the help of Iran. Bottom line is, when you empower a group to fight a far away enemy you must be prepared to either hand over power to them once they succeed or prepare to fight on two fronts indefinitely.

[Killborn]

Re: Indians, my point is that we take our allies where we can. Heckfire, part of the reason we were able to tame the west is because of other tribes that were willing to help us. IT would have gone on a lot longer were it not for these friendly tribes and Indians.